Some questions should be easy to answer. But, with Congress, some things are never easy. Fresh off the House vote to let polluters dump unlimited amounts of carbon pollution into the air, a House subcommittee under the jurisdiction of chair Fred Upton (R-Mich.) will start to consider letting polluters dump unsafe amounts of toxic pollution into the air.

You see, for years a lot of polluters have avoided having to reduce their emissions of toxic pollution — this is the hard-core stuff that causes cancers, birth defects, developmental disorders, etc. Power plants, cement kilns [PDF], and other industrial plants [PDF] have either never had to meet clean air safeguards for toxic pollution, or have not had to meet effective ones. By updating clean air safeguards on toxic pollution, the EPA will save over 25,000 lives per year.

The EPA’s stronger safeguards to protect against toxic air pollution will have profound benefits for health at the local level. As USA Today documented in a superb special report focusing on toxic emissions near schools, the more toxic pollution in the air, the more health problems you’ll find near the plant dumping the stuff out:

In some school districts, emissions from the smokestacks of refineries or chemical plants threatened students of every age, preschool through prom. Outside those schools, reports from polluters themselves often indicated a dozen different chemicals in the air. All are considered toxic by the government, though few have been tested for their specific effects on children.

Scientists have long known that kids are particularly susceptible to the dangers. They breathe more air in proportion to their weight than adults do, and their bodies are still developing. Based on the time they spend at school, their exposures could last for years but the impact might not become clear for decades.

So health and other groups applauded [PDF] when the Environmental Protection Agency started updating clean air safeguards to protect our health from these deadly toxins.

Unfortunately, for some members of Congress, the health of schoolkids — and the rest of us — just doesn’t seem to be the priority. Which brings us back to the hearing this Friday, which will be the first formal hearing to discussion stopping or delaying the EPA from reducing toxic pollution.

So I thought it would be illuminating to take a look at how proposals to stop or delay the EPA might affect things back home … in the districts of members who will be taking this issue up.

Let’s start with Fred Upton, from Michigan’s 6th District. NRDC’s analysis of Toxics Release Inventory data shows that Upton’s district is home to 33 plants that emit over 365,000 pounds of toxic pollution annually, and that there are 247 schools within 5 miles of these plants.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) is teaming up with House Energy and Commerce Chair Fred Upton (R-Mich.) to introduce a bill to allow America’s biggest polluters to continue dumping unlimited amounts of carbon emissions into the air. It’s not that surprising that Inhofe is pushing this in the Senate. After all, Inhofe has always prided himself on being a little “out there” in a distinctly Charlie Sheen “wild man” kind of way.

Just about every major health group in the United States is now telling Upton that he is putting the welfare of millions of Americans at risk who suffer from asthma (that’s 24 million people right there — including 7 million children!) and other respiratory diseases.

The enactment of Chairman Fred Upton’s bill would strip away Clean Air Act protections that safeguard Americans and their families from air pollution that puts their lives at risk. The protections against the health harm from carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas pollution are essential to public health and must be preserved. — Charles D. Connor, president and chief executive officer

And it’s not like people back home in the Michigan sixth congressional district are exactly clamoring for more pollution. The American Lung Association estimates [PDF] that over 225,000 Michigan children have asthma, a condition made worse and more dangerous by air pollution.

62 percent of Upton’s constituents oppose a bill he is sponsoring to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to reduce carbon dioxide and other pollutants;

67 percent — including 60 percent of Republicans — agreed with the statement that “Congress should let the EPA do its job,” as opposed to the minority who believe that “Congress should decide” what actions are taken to curb carbon pollution;

61 percent say that “the EPA needs to do more to hold polluters accountable and protect the air and water”;

If you were a member of Congress would you look at the following chart and assume that your constituents are best served by handcuffing the Environmental Protection Agency in its efforts to keep our air as clean as possible?

Click for a larger version.

Of course, the easy Washington answer here is to say “follow the money.”

And it’s worth noting that over the course of his career, Upton has taken over $750,000 from polluters. But, in some ways, that’s too easy and too cynical an answer. After all, it’s not like all polluters are looking to dismantle the EPA.

Top power company CEOs rained on the Republican parade Tuesday as Congress eyes legislation forcing an outright halt to EPA climate change rules.

The leaders — from American Electric Power, NextEra Energy, Southern Co., and Dominion Resources — said to varying degrees that they support allowing the EPA to proceed on a “reasonable” time frame on greenhouse gas rules for power plants, petroleum refiners and other major stationary sources.

They also didn’t sound so thrilled with the draft bill preempting the EPA that House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) plans to start moving later this spring.

“I think that’s probably a bit strong,” said Michael Morris, president and CEO of Columbus, Ohio-based AEP, in an interview at an energy industry conference in Washington. “Congressman Upton is a dear friend and a very strong leader and a visionary elected official, but I think even he knows that that probably isn’t going to happen.”

“I don’t support complete preemption,” Lewis Hay, chairman and CEO of NextEra Energy, a Juno Beach, Fla.-based power company, told Politico. “When I look at what EPA has done so far and the position they’ve taken on greenhouse gases, I think it’s actually been pretty moderate.”

So just why is Fred Upton waging this war against 24 million American asthma victims?

]]>http://grist.org/energy-policy/2011-03-03-fred-uptons-bizarre-war-on-24-million-americans-with-asthma/feed/0upton-flickr-iomechallenge.jpgMost of Congressman Upton's Constituents Think Congress Should Let the EPA Do Its JobThe people have spoken: let the EPA do its jobhttp://grist.org/energy-policy/2011-02-10-the-people-have-spoken-let-the-epa-do-its-job/
http://grist.org/energy-policy/2011-02-10-the-people-have-spoken-let-the-epa-do-its-job/#respondFri, 11 Feb 2011 03:00:13 +0000http://www.grist.org/article/2011-02-10-the-people-have-spoken-let-the-epa-do-its-job/]]>Cross-posted from the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Yesterday, members of Rep. Fred Upton’s (R-Mich.) House Energy and Commerce Committee held their first hearing on Chair Upton’s proposal to block the Environmental Protection Agency from updating Clean Air Act safeguards to protect our health from life-threatening carbon pollution. (Hat tip and bow to EPA chief Lisa Jackson who withstood hours of dirty air extremism from panel members, and didn’t give one inch on the EPA’s obligation to protect public health by limiting carbon pollution.)

But what about the views of the voters in the districts of specific members of Congress? Say, voters in Upton’s district? Do they support blocking the EPA, as their own representative is proposing? What about voters in the districts of other committee members who will have to vote on blocking the EPA in coming weeks?

Turns out, new polling shows that voters Upton’s are not at all behind him on this, and the voters in eight other districts we looked at aren’t either. Get the release here.

In fact, nearly two-thirds of Upton’s own constituents oppose his bill to block EPA from limiting carbon pollution:

Click for a larger version.

Here’s a quick scan of the Upton results:

67 percent — including 60 percent of Republicans — agreed with the statement that “Congress should let the EPA do its job,” as opposed to the minority who believe that “Congress should decide” what actions are taken to curb carbon pollution.

61 percent say that “EPA needs to do more to hold polluters accountable and protect the air and water.”

]]>http://grist.org/energy-policy/2011-02-10-the-people-have-spoken-let-the-epa-do-its-job/feed/0upton2-flickr-gopconference.jpgChart.Senators support polluters over asthmatic childrenhttp://grist.org/article/2011-02-02-senators-support-polluters-over-asthmatic-children/
http://grist.org/article/2011-02-02-senators-support-polluters-over-asthmatic-children/#respondThu, 03 Feb 2011 02:30:52 +0000http://www.grist.org/article/2011-02-02-senators-support-polluters-over-asthmatic-children/]]>National health organizations are not scoffing at the link between pollution and asthma.Cross-posted from the Natural Resources Defense Council.

As my colleague David Doniger explained, there’s a new pollution promoter on the scene, and his name is Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.). Barrasso has introduced a bill (S. 228) that would allow unlimited carbon dioxide pollution and dismiss by Congressional fiat the scientific understanding of the life-threatening health threats posed by CO2 pollution.

Barrasso takes his place next to Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), whom the The Hill reports is once again trying to persuade his colleagues to sign onto his bill to stop the EPA’s public health protections in its tracks.

I blogged last week about how members of Congress who sign up to stop the EPA’s work of protecting our health are putting their constituents and Americans at greater risk for a wide range of health effects, including one that so many people are familiar with: asthma attacks. Some members questioned the link. For instance, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) scoffed at the notion that climate change could impact asthma sufferers, saying, “The NRDC’s connection between greenhouse gasses and asthma is a reach at best.”

Far too many of our nation’s children, elderly, and people with asthma, cardiovascular and lung diseases and diabetes live under added threats to their health from breathing polluted air and the impacts of global warming.

(Signers to this letter are too many to list right in the middle of a blog. Check at the bottom for the list.)

My colleague Kim Knowlton has discussed these and other health connections several times (here, here, here, and here).

So, let’s get back to who is putting America’s 24 million asthmatics — including over 7 million children — at greater risk of having to be rushed to the emergency room gasping for breath. Here’s a quick rundown of the newest bad air bill cosponsors, the number of asthmatics in their state, and how much money they’ve taken from polluters during their careers:

Click for a larger version. [PDF]

Here’s the list of the national health organizations signed on to the letter I referenced: American Academy of Pediatrics, American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation, American College of Preventive Medicine, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, American Thoracic Society, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, Children’s Environmental Health Network , Health Occupations Students of America, National Association for Medical Direction of Respiratory Care, National Association of County and City Health Officials, National Environmental Health Association, National Home Oxygen Patients Association, National Physicians Alliance, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Prevention Institute, Public Health Institute, and the Trust for America’s Health.

]]>http://grist.org/article/2011-02-02-senators-support-polluters-over-asthmatic-children/feed/0girl-gas-mask-doll-kid-child-toxic-istock_180x150.jpgGirl with gas mask.graphSen. Scott Brown: Stand up for clean air, not pollutershttp://grist.org/article/2011-01-19-sen-scott-brown-stand-up-for-clean-air-not-polluters/
http://grist.org/article/2011-01-19-sen-scott-brown-stand-up-for-clean-air-not-polluters/#respondThu, 20 Jan 2011 05:31:33 +0000http://www.grist.org/?p=42222]]>A lot of people in Massachusetts suffer from asthma, the disease that makes it hard to breathe, sends kids gasping for breath to the emergency room and can saddle families with huge medical bills. In fact, estimates from the American Lung Association are that over 130,000 kids and nearly 500,000 adults in Massachusetts suffer from asthma.*

Given all that, you might wonder why Massachusett’s own Senator Scott Brown is telling constituents that he doesn’t think the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should update public health protections to limit the amount of carbon that polluters can dump into the air. Right now, there are NO limits for life-threatening carbon pollution.

“… (Senator Brown’s) actions threaten the health of hundreds of thousands of Massachusetts residents, especially children with asthma and seniors.

Brown has expressed support for congressional efforts to block EPA from limiting carbon dioxide pollution. Carbon dioxide pollution increases the risk of heat stress, promotes the spread of infectious diseases and makes it more difficult to reduce smog pollution, which threatens the health of asthma sufferers and others with respiratory problems.”

Check out the radio ad that NRDC and Environment Massachusetts are running on Bay State radio stations this week.The text of the radio spot is as follows:

“For 40 years, the U.S. EPA has protected the health of all Americans by cracking down on big polluters and the life-threatening pollution they pour into our air. But now Senator Scott Brown wants to cripple the EPA when it comes to protecting us from carbon dioxide, by letting big polluters dump unlimited amounts into our air. Please call Scott Brown at 202-224-4543 and ask him why he’s putting corporate polluters and their profits ahead of the health of our families. Paid for by NRDC.”

We think Massachusetts residents (and the rest of us) deserve better. We all know that big polluters don’t want the EPA to do its job. Some of them have given generously to Senator Brown – during his 2010 campaign, energy and natural resources sent nearly $150,000 to the Brown campaign. I’m not suggesting the Senator Brown is trying to cripple the EPA just because polluters funded his campaign. But they did help put him in office, and its what he does there that counts.

Senator Brown needs to hear from folks back home that he should stand up for clean air and public health, instead of standing up for polluters.

]]>http://grist.org/article/2011-01-19-sen-scott-brown-stand-up-for-clean-air-not-polluters/feed/0Who is standing against polluters and for clean air?http://grist.org/article/2011-01-07-who-is-standing-against-polluters-and-for-clean-air/
http://grist.org/article/2011-01-07-who-is-standing-against-polluters-and-for-clean-air/#respondSat, 08 Jan 2011 02:25:23 +0000http://www.grist.org/article/2011-01-07-who-is-standing-against-polluters-and-for-clean-air/]]>Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.): “Someone should be standing up for children’s lungs.”Cross-posted from the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Yesterday, I noted that several polluter-supported members of Congress are introducing legislation to “throttle” the Environmental Protection Agency, which would sacrifice much-needed safeguards by putting the profits of corporate polluters at the top of their agenda.

Fortunately, some members of Congress are just as determined to make sure the EPA can keep doing the job it has for the last 40 years — protecting the health of all Americans by cracking down on corporate polluters and the life-threatening air pollution they recklessly dump.

As E&E News reports, several Democratic senators took a hard-line stand against proposals to limit the EPA’s ability to protect public health. Kudos to these members for standing up to the polluter-driven agenda:

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.): “There is a case to be made that, in the contest between corporate profits and children’s lungs, someone should be standing up for children’s lungs.”

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.): “People on the other side can talk about costs [of EPA safeguards]. What’s the cost of a life? What’s the cost of a disability? … We’re not going to cower in a corner.”

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) pledged to “do everything we can to prevent the taking away of the responsibility of EPA to protect our environment and our health.”

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa): “I never defend — I always attack … If they want to repeal EPA [regulations] and stuff like that, I think we ought to go after them. I say, give them rope.”

And as Environment and Public Works Chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) told Politico: “I will use every single tool to me as chairman of this committee and as a senator from California to oppose any legislative effort that threatens the health or safety of the well being of the people of this great nation.”

There is no question that making sure the EPA can do its job without polluter-driven interference is essential for the protection of all our health. As I’ve mentioned before, hundreds of public health and other organizations, including the American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics told Congress in a letter [PDF] that:

Over the coming years the EPA will be fulfilling its duty to reduce the smog and soot pollution, air toxics, and global warming pollution that are the cause of these public health threats. We urge you to fully support the EPA in fulfilling this responsibility. Doing so is quite literally a matter of life and death for tens of thousands of people and will mean the difference between chronic debilitating illness or a healthy life for hundreds of thousands more.

What’s the bottom line?

As Charles D. Connor, president and CEO of the American Lung Association (ALA) said, “We urge members of Congress to reject the pleas from polluters and continue to support the Act and the EPA’s ability to protect the air we breathe.”

You can join ALA in urging your representatives to stand up for clean air and stand against polluters by signing on to their letter of support for the EPA. Here’s one for medical and health professionals, and here’s one for regular folks.

Sadly, it hasn’t taken long for some in the new Congress to throw in their lot with this polluter-driven agenda. The Hill is reporting that some House members are backing a bill to abolish the EPA’s power to do its job to protect us from carbon pollution, which will give polluters a free pass to dump it into our air without limit.

By taking this radical step the first week of the new Congress, these members are showing their true colors — that they are ready to stand with the most extreme elements in order to let corporate polluters off the hook and dump as much carbon pollution into the air as they want. Its even sadder to watch them read right out of the playbook that polluters like Koch Industries and the Tea Party are writing. It doesn’t take much reading to realize the effort to abolish the EPA’s ability to do one of its jobs may only be a first step.

Make no mistake about it. Anyone who supports this bill is helping to light the Tea Party fuse to blow up the Clean Air Act and the EPA. As I mentioned yesterday, even former moderates like Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) are opposing EPA’s efforts to update the Clean Air Act to reduce toxic pollution. We need to resist any efforts by Congress to block the EPA’s ability to protect our health.

Politico reports that the Scholastic company — producer and distributor of a wide range of educational products to our nation’s school systems — has teamed up with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on an “educational” program about U.S. energy consumption.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce wants middle school students to consider what would happen if government regulations shut down the coal industry or another domestic energy source.

The question is part of a teaching guide the group plans to distribute to roughly 100,000 classrooms across the country as part of its “Shedding Light on Energy” program with educational publisher Scholastic Inc.

“What do you think could happen if one of our energy sources was suddenly unavailable (e.g., power plant maintenance, government curb on production, etc.)?” the guide asks.

Chamber officials maintain that there is no “hidden agenda” behind the question or the educational outreach effort in general. But given the current political climate surrounding the Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, the group’s direct involvement in public school education is expected to make environmentalists and like-minded progressives uncomfortable.

Actually, the fact that Scholastic is using its wholesome name to traffic the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s pollution-friendly propaganda should be alarming to anyone with kids in the public school system. (I have two.) In fact, the hypocrisy embedded in the U.S. Chamber’s involvement in producing education materials on energy for kids is downright shocking.

What makes the U.S. Chamber such an inappropriate partner in child education?

One reason is that the Chamber’s information is extremely one-sided. It neglects to mention the public health, environmental, and national security consequences of our reliance on dirty energy sources. The coal and oil which supply a great deal of our energy also create extraordinary amounts of air, water, and soil pollution, and of course are primarily responsible for the warming of our planet. Our addiction to oil makes the U.S. vulnerable to oil-producing nations that wish us harm. These are consequences that today’s kids will have to deal with as tomorrow’s leaders.

It is puzzling that Scholastic is willing to align itself with incomplete and biased material, especially since its own “Kids’ Environmental Report Card” ranks global warming and other pollution issues as serious challenges kids want to take on.

But even more puzzling is why Scholastic would partner with an organization that has so little regard for the health and welfare of our nation’s kids. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has a long track record of opposing common-sense public health protections, especially those intended to protect our children. A few examples:

The U.S. Chamber has been a consistent opponent of efforts to reduce mercury pollution. Mercury is a dangerous neurotoxin that interferes with children’s brain development and can cause severe learning disorders. Unborn children are especially vulnerable — according to the EPA, “Impacts on cognitive thinking, memory, attention, language, and fine motor and visual spatial skills have been seen in children exposed to methylmercury in the womb.”

So … the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which opposes measures that would limit our children’s exposure to mercury, which is known to cause serious learning disorders, is producing educational materials for kids?

The U.S. EPA is working to tighten standards for this kind of pollution in order to prevent as many as 12,000 deaths per year and thousands of other effects, but the U.S. Chamber is trying to block these crucial health protections.

Making this even more ironic is the fact that the tighter standards the Chamber is trying to block would reduce by over 2 million the number of days of school kids miss due to air-pollution related illnesses. Hey, how are the kids supposed to read the Chamber’s communiqués if they are gasping for breath in the emergency room?

As NRDC’s Sarah Janssen explains, “Some phthalates are hormone-disrupting chemicals that interfere with production of the male hormone testosterone, and have been associated with reproductive abnormalities.”

Yet the U.S. Chamber opposes protecting children from these dangerous chemicals, explaining in one letter to Congress that “Manufacturers would be forced to use more expensive alternatives that may unfairly subject them to additional safety and legal liability concerns.”

Scholastic’s decision to partner with the U.S. Chamber is all the more disappointing because it does include environmental education resources (full disclosure, including some links to NRDC.)

So what can you do about this? You can let Scholastic’s CEO and executives know that you are concerned about the partnership with the U.S. Chamber and ask them
to stop the program. Here’s how you can reach them (and a sample note is below).

I am writing to express my concern about Scholastic’s “Shedding Light on Energy” partnership with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The materials that have been made public fail to shed much light on the critical consequences of our energy use and fail to challenge students to think of creative solutions to our energy problems. They also appear to neglect topics that Scholastic’s own “Kids’ Environmental Report Card” identifies as important.

In addition, the U.S. Chamber has a long record of opposing efforts to protect children from dangerous chemicals and pollutants like mercury, smog, and phthalates.

Kids today will be our leaders tomorrow. We owe them — and ourselves — better than what the U.S. Chamber materials have to offer.

I urge you to end the partnership with the U.S. Chamber, and to recall and recycle all materials printed and distributed in association with it.

]]>http://grist.org/article/2010-10-21-scholastic-steps-into-the-chamber-of-hypocrisy/feed/0scholasticchamber.jpgFive reasons why a comprehensive climate and energy plan beats the energy-only approachhttp://grist.org/article/2010-06-07-five-reasons-why-a-comprehensive-climate-and-energy-plan-beats-t/
http://grist.org/article/2010-06-07-five-reasons-why-a-comprehensive-climate-and-energy-plan-beats-t/#respondTue, 08 Jun 2010 04:02:05 +0000http://www.grist.org/article/2010-06-07-five-reasons-why-a-comprehensive-climate-and-energy-plan-beats-t/]]>As the Congress returns to D.C., President Obama and Majority Leader Reid will need to keep making the case to the Senate that a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill deserves their attention now, so the president can sign a bill this year. The president has been intensifying his rhetoric in support of climate legislation, saying:

But we’ve still got more work to do, and that’s why I’m going to keep fighting to pass comprehensive energy and climate legislation in Washington. We’re going to try to get it done this year.

In a speech at Pittsburgh’s Carnegie Mellon University, Obama made one of his strongest pitches for comprehensive climate legislation, arguing that the case for breaking the nation’s addiction to fossil fuels has been made clearer by the environmental catastrophe in the gulf.

“I will make the case for a clean-energy future wherever I can, and I will work with anyone from either party to get this done. But we will get this done,” Obama said. “The next generation will not be held hostage to energy sources from the last century.”

But, knowing that some are still calling for the Senate to think small by passing a bill that just boosts energy production from clean and dirty sources, I thought it would help to outline five reasons why a comprehensive package will do more for national security, the economy, the budget, and the environment than an energy-only bill.

Independent analyses show that a strong comprehensive clean energy and climate bill would:

Cut U.S. oil imports in half, by reducing our dependence on oil and enabling U.S. producers to maximize the output of aging land-based wells, according to Advanced Resources International. An energy-only bill won’t.

Cut our budget deficit by $24 billion between 2010 and 2019, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). An energy-only bill would increase the deficit by $13.5 billion over the same time period, according the CBO’s analysis.

Cut 2 billion metric tons of global warming pollution from 2005 levels, by 2020. An energy only bill would at best cut just a tenth of that amount, but could also increase pollution levels depending on its details.

Anyone contemplating supporting energy-only over a comprehensive bill should bear these facts in mind. And realize that whether your top priority is national security, deficit reduction, job creation, or pollution reduction, a comprehensive bill clean energy and climate bill does a lot more for our country.

]]>http://grist.org/article/2010-06-07-five-reasons-why-a-comprehensive-climate-and-energy-plan-beats-t/feed/0Every Day We Delay…http://grist.org/article/every-day-we-delay/
http://grist.org/article/every-day-we-delay/#respondWed, 26 May 2010 21:33:51 +0000http://www.grist.org/?p=37320]]>

As the Gulf Coast oil disaster shows, America has a failed national energy policy. We need a new clean energy policy to break our addiction to oil, enhance our national security, limit carbon pollution and lead us to clean American energy. Last June, the House passed a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill. But so far the Senate has dragged its feet in enacting legislation.

The United States imports 11.7 million barrels of oil. According to the American Petroleum Institute, the U.S. imported an average of 11.7 million barrels per day of crude and other oil products in 2009.

Up to 4 million gallons of oil surges into the Gulf. The official estimate is that about 5,000 barrels of oil are spilling per day, but independent experts contend that the actual amount is far higher – as much as 95,000 barrels per day. A barrel holds 42 gallons.

100,000 solar panels roll off Chinese production lines. Solar module production in China and Taiwan will increase 48 percent to 5,515 megawatts in 2010, according to a February, 2010 report by Yuanta. One megawatt requires about 5,000 panels. Assuming 250 production days per year, this translates to 110,300 panels per day.

The United States generates 19 million tons (metric) of greenhouse gas emissions. EPA’s most recent greenhouse gas inventory reports that the U.S. produced 6,956.8 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 equivalent basis) in 2008. That’s 19,059,726 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions each day.

But, by passing clean energy and climate legislation, Congress could:

Create 1.9 million clean energy jobs here in the US. A strong clean energy and climate bill with would stimulate clean energy manufacturing here in the US. A bill with strong energy efficiency incentives would create a net of 1.9 million jobs, according to in-depth modeling built on collaborative University of Illinois, Yale University and the University of California.

Increase household income by up to $1,175 per year and boost GDP by up to $111 billion. The same study found that a bill would boost US GDP by as much as $111 billion and increase average annual household income by $1,175 per year.

Strategically position the US to lead a $13 trillion global clean-energy market. The clean energy industry offers significant growth opportunities for American businesses. Under a global policy aimed at keeping carbon concentrations below 450ppm, clean energy investments are forecast to exceed $13 trillion over the next two decades. A strong climate bill in the US would trigger investments that pay for themselves in lower energy costs and help establish global markets that would directly benefit US manufacturers of cleaner cars, cleaner fuels, and cleaner power (see table below) and companies involved in improving industrial, power plant, and building efficiency.

]]>http://grist.org/article/every-day-we-delay/feed/0NYT: U.S. Chamber has not expressed support for any proposals to cap emissionshttp://grist.org/article/nyt-us-chamber-has-not-expressed-support-for-any-proposals-to-cap-emissions/
http://grist.org/article/nyt-us-chamber-has-not-expressed-support-for-any-proposals-to-cap-emissions/#respondFri, 20 Nov 2009 03:57:21 +0000http://www.grist.org/article/nyt-us-chamber-has-not-expressed-support-for-any-proposals-to-cap-emissions/]]>John Broder has an illuminating story in today’s New York Times, “Storm Over the Chamber” discussing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s climate crisis and how Thomas Donohue’s style exacerbates it.

Tellingly, the story begins with an anecdote that suggests where the U.S. Chamber gets its tin ear.

BACK in the 1990s when Thomas J. Donohue was president of the American Trucking Associations, a subordinate raised a question at a staff meeting.

Some of the association’s members, the aide said, wondered whether it was really necessary for the group’s president to fly on a private jet.

Mr. Donohue, a scrappy Irish-American born in Brooklyn and raised on Long Island, turned to his chief of staff and asked how many seats his jet had. “Well, eight, sir,” the aide said. “Tomorrow morning I want you to call and get a 12-seater,” Mr. Donohue shot back. The subject never came up again.

The U.S. Chamber has demonstrated a similar lack of interest in exploring the concerns of its members when it comes to climate change.

Although it has at least made an effort — schizophrenic though it might be — to at least sound as though it isn’t as out of step as it really is. We’ve been keeping a close watch on the Chamber’s rhetoric, through our ad this week and our “WhoDoestheChamberRepresent.org” website and in recent blog posts (here and here.)

Alas, despite the Chamber’s change of tone, it has yet to change the tune. As the New York Times reported

Mr. Donohue would not agree to an interview for this article but provided written answers by e-mail to a number of questions about the chamber’s climate change position…

Mr. Donohue said that the chamber had a series of basic principles by which it would judge any legislation on climate change. It supports new nuclear plants, increased domestic oil and gas exploration, research on capturing and storing carbon dioxide emissions, new efficiency measures and provisions to control cost increases associated with emissions reductions. It has not expressed support for any proposals to impose a mandatory cap on greenhouse gas emissions. (emphasis added.)

Aside from wondering why Mr. Donohue suddenly got so shy about talking to a reporter, I couldn’t help but notice the last sentence, which gets to the heart of the questions we’ve been raising about the U.S. Chamber position.

Does this mean that the U.S. Chamber won’t support a mandatory cap?

Or is the Chamber keeping the door open to the possibility it will at some point support a cap?

Or is the Chamber just really never going to support serious climate policy, but is trying to avoid saying so?

While we wait for answers, in light of the fact the Chamber has “not expressed support for any proposals to impose a mandatory cap on green house gas emissions,” how does the Chamber explain its agreement “that the objectives outlined in [Senator Kerry and Graham’s NYT] editorial can serve as a solid, workable, commonsense foundation on which to craft a bill,” considering that the Senators stated their main purpose is “advocating aggressive reductions in our emissions of the carbon gases that cause climate change”?

Arch Coal, Peabody, and Consol each put in $5 million; Foundation Coal put in just $3 million. Meanwhile, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) put in $6 million. AAR represents major railroads including Union Pacific, BNSF, CSX, and Norfolk Southern, which get substantial portions of their revenues from hauling coal.

ACCCE opposed the Waxman-Markey climate bill, and recently Duke Energy left the group because of its entrenched opposition to meaningful climate legislation.

E&E also reported on the American Petroleum Institute’s (API) tax return, noting that the group spent about $75 million on public relations and advertising in 2008. API has been a vocal opponent of climate legislation for a long time, including repeated investments in misinformation and Astroturf campaigns. This past summer, API bankrolled the faux group “Energy Citizens” which organized a number of anti-climate legislation public events around the country.

It’s a lot of money to spend for the right to keep the U.S. stuck with dirty energy sources that are warming the planet and melting the glaciers. Speaking of melting glaciers, check out this remarkably prescient ad from Humble Oil, which formed several building blocks of what eventually became known as ExxonMobil.

Talk about truth in advertising.

Why should you buy their product? Because each day, they produce enough oil to melt 7 tons of glacier! Ok, it is from 1962, so its not like global warming was front-page news. On the other hand, it was just two years before President Lyndon B. Johnson noted: “This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through … a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels” in a special message to Congress.)

]]>http://grist.org/article/api-and-accce-spend-the-big-bucks/feed/0coal-money_180x150.jpgThe U.S. Chamber needs to get its story straighthttp://grist.org/article/the-us-chamber-needs-to-get-its-story-straight/
http://grist.org/article/the-us-chamber-needs-to-get-its-story-straight/#respondThu, 19 Nov 2009 04:48:33 +0000http://www.grist.org/article/the-us-chamber-needs-to-get-its-story-straight/]]>The U.S. Chamber seems to be going to great lengths these days persuade Congress that it really wants to help pass climate legislation. But a very different message is coming through its blogs, tweets, and unscripted comments.

We think everyone should know what else the U.S. Chamber is saying, so we have updated our “WhoDoestheUSChamberRepresent.org” website with our latest Politico ad, which is running today.

The ad focuses on the Chamber’s recent contradictory and confusing statements about climate legislation:

9/29/09: The Chamber denies that “we deny the existence of any problem” and says its critics are “dead wrong” in a press release.

10/26/09: U.S. Chamber President and CEO, Tom Donohue, tells Politico “Is the science [of global warming] right? Is the science not right? I don’t know.”

11/03/09: The U.S. Chamber sends a letter to the Senate saying it “believes climate change is an important issue for this Congress to address” and commends “Senators Kerry and Graham for their recent [call for] comprehensive climate legislation.”

11/03/09: The U.S. Chamber later tweets that Congress should reject legislation with the “top-down approach of targets and timetables…”

11/06/09: The U.S. Chamber insists its 11/03/09 letter articulates the Chamber’s “position for the last two years and only represents a change to those who have willfully misrepresented it in the past” in a blog post by Bruce Josten, the letter’s author.

I have discussed these claims and statements at greater length in blog posts here and here.

In those posts I also raise the following questions, which might help the U.S. Chamber get its story straight. Or at least, consistent:

Does the U.S. Chamber consider emission reduction targets and timetables to be essential to include or exclude from a climate bill?

If the U.S. Chamber thinks targets and timetables should be included, what does it believe should be the basis for setting emission reduction targets and timetables?

What emission reduction targets is the Chamber prepared to support and on what timetable?

When will the U.S. Chamber lay out an actual proposal for climate legislation?

]]>http://grist.org/article/the-us-chamber-needs-to-get-its-story-straight/feed/0Chamber ad. Is the U.S. Chamber changing its tune on climate, or just its tone?http://grist.org/article/is-the-us-chamber-changing-its-tune-or-just-its-tone/
http://grist.org/article/is-the-us-chamber-changing-its-tune-or-just-its-tone/#respondThu, 05 Nov 2009 07:34:32 +0000http://www.grist.org/article/is-the-us-chamber-changing-its-tune-or-just-its-tone/]]>

While we welcome the U.S. Chamber’s desire to sound more constructive, reading in between the lines — and reading the lines themselves — raises big questions about how much the Chamber’s objectives have really changed — setting aside their obvious need to strike a more conciliatory tone. Which prompts us to contemplate how we’ll know when the Chamber does decides to engage the climate debate constructively.

The letter starts off with a more positive tone than many are used to the Chamber taking:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce believes climate change is an important issue for this Congress to address. The Chamber stands ready to work with Congress to resolve this issue in a bipartisan manner that recognizes regional differences, the state of the technology, and the compelling need for a solution that minimizes overall economic impact.

Hey, sounds good so far. Then the Chamber references the recent oped by Sens. Kerry and Graham, saying:

There are many good ideas out there that can serve as a solid, workable, commonsense, and realistic foundation on which to craft a bill. The Chamber commends Sens. Kerry and Graham for their recent New York Times editorial on the need for comprehensive climate legislation. The Chamber welcomes the call for a new conversation on how to address the issue, and believes their editorial can serve as a solid, workable, commonsense foundation on which to craft a bill. Many other important details are needed, but the Chamber agrees that the objectives outlined in that editorial, coupled with their clear recognition that “this process requires honest give-and-take and genuine bipartisanship,” can move this important policy objective forward in a bipartisan manner that garners strong business community support.

Overall, the letter does a fine job of suggesting that the U.S. Chamber is prepared to take on a more constructive approach. But, here’s where you have to read between the lines. The Chamber embraces several of the principles listed by Sens. Kerry and Graham, except for the one calling for “aggressive reductions in our emissions of the carbon gases that cause climate change.”

So here’s something that isn’t new. The U.S. Chamber’s criteria for climate policy traditionally exclude the main point of having one: reducing global warming pollution. The press release the Chamber issued about the letter really emphasizes the point, as Bruce Josten, the U.S. Chamber’s executive vice president for government affairs, says:

The Chamber believes the Senate has an opportunity to promote a workable bottom-up plan that starts by addressing the fundamental building blocks-rather than the top-down approach of targets and timetables it has taken thus far.

Tweets are a good way to get a sense of what the messenger thinks is really important, since there’s no room for beating around the bush. Which raises the question why, if the Chamber’s main point is that it doesn’t want top-down “targets and timetables,” why did they exclude mention of that from their letter to the Senators?

Digging in here, the Chamber’s press release and tweet talk seem to be implying that we won’t have the technologies we need to cut carbon emissions. This is what’s meant by their language on “state of the technology” and their call for a “bottom-up” and “building blocks” approach. But analysts have repeatedly found that the goals in legislation are achievable with clean energy solutions, which is why EIA and EPA have documented that the costs are negligible because the building blocks exist today and the bill includes provisions to ramp up the use of low-carbon blocks (efficiency, renewables, ccs, even nukes are given a path).

Is the chamber trying to draw up a seat at the table just so it can press a reset button by making phony claims about how the bills are actually designed? If the chamber wants to be taken seriously, it needs to start by being honest about what the bills actually do.

The letter also includes the Chamber’s usual litany of reasons it will reject a climate bill, reasons which can be so broadly interpreted that they can be used to reject anything the Chamber staff decides it doesn’t like.

Disappointingly then, the new letter raises as many questions as it answers. We can’t answer those questions — only the Chamber can, by its actions in the weeks ahead.

Now we do take heart that at least the Chamber recognizes the need to appear be constructive on this issue. But we’re all ready to fast-forward and get to the point where the Chamber actually does engage in a constructive manner. But how will we know if we’re getting there? If the Chamber starts addressing some of the following questions, it’ll help us sort out the reality from the illusion:

Does the U.S. Chamber consider emission reduction targets and timetables to be essential to include or exclude from a climate bill?

If the U.S. Chamber thinks targets and timetables should be included, what does it believe should be the basis for setting emission reduction targets and timetables?

What emission reduction targets is the Chamber prepared to support and on what timetable?

When will the U.S. Chamber lay out an actual proposal for climate legislation?

The high-profile departures from the US Chamber because of its extremist stance on climate, the strong criticism from its own former members and the Chamber’s tone-deaf response to the situation are contributing to reputational damage that is hurting the organization’s credibility.

“No one denies [the US Chamber] the right to their viewpoint and their pro-business agenda,” noted Kempner. “But, when their pro-business agenda begins to line up with the fringe of the Republican Party versus the mainstream of the Republican Party, they put themselves in the position of becoming irrelevant.”

Earlier today, Mr. Donohue told reporters he doesn’t mind being attacked. “Bring ’em on!” he says. Given that this has largely been a saga of self-inflicted wounds (Mr. Donohue’s attempts to blame a vast environmental conspiracy notwithstanding), it’ll be interesting to see what the Chamber does to itself next.

I couldn’t help wonder what kind of stories the Chamber hoped to generate with the statement it issued earlier today. So I leaned back, closed my eyes, and used my imagination:

US Chamber Emerges as Unlikely Hero for Climate Protection; Calls for Global Powers for Congress

In a surprising departure from its century long-fight for free enterprise, the US Chamber of Commerce has laid out an ambitious set of legislative principles on climate change, including one controversial position that could require amending the Constitution to permit global expansion of Congress’ lawmaking powers.

The boldest of the principles stated that “any climate change response must include all major CO2 emitting economies.” That appears to set a high bar for Congress to meet, at least within the Constitution’s current limitation of Congress’ power to domestic lawmaking, because while while the Chamber expressed its support for “strong legislation,” it also made clear it wouldn’t settle for anything less than a law that governs emissions globally. “We opposed the Waxman-Markey bill because it is neither comprehensive nor international,” the Chamber said.

“The Chamber is clearly saying that it will only support legislation if Congress regulates global warming pollution from all countries with significant emissions. So on top of passing a climate bill, Congress would need to amend the Constitution,” said one constitutional scholar. “I think that creates a bit of a hurdle while they are tied up with health care.”

Under the US Constitution, the Executive Branch is granted authority to make treaties, not Congress. Moving that power to Congress would require a constitutional amendment, which requires a two-thirds majority in the House and in the Senate, and then ratification by the states.

“Look, right now we don’t even have language on this,” said a harried senior aide. “I don’t know if they think we can do this as a floor amendment, or in conference or what.”

The Chamber’s proposals also rebutted complaints about the Chamber’s position on climate, including former Chamber-member PG&E’s criticism that the Chamber uses “extreme rhetoric and obstructionist tactics.” Clearly stung by such comments, the Chamber stated that “Some in the environmental movement claim that, because of our opposition to a specific bill or approach, we must be opposed to all efforts to reduce greenhouse gases, or that we deny the existence of any problem. They are dead wrong.”

“I’m really ashamed,” said one ashen-faced environmentalist as she wiped away a tear. “The Chamber has been so misunderstood. Who would have realized that they had the most ambitious goals of all?”

However, some questioned the Chamber’s proposals on practical grounds, questioning whether even transferring treaty-making power to the Congress would be enough, since any new rules would need to be enforced.

“That’s gonna be pretty tough,” said a veteran of the EPA’s compliance division. “We’re already backlogged enough just regulating pollution in the U.S. But doing it overseas, who needs the pressure?”

On reflection, one bright spot did occur to the official. “There’d be a hell of a lot of overtime, come to think of it.”

The Chamber’s statement also made clear that clean energy and climate legislation should “promote new technologies”, “emphasize efficiency” and “ensure affordable energy for families and businesses.” However, those are not seen as controversial, as measures to address those concerns were included in the House bill and are widely expected to be part of any legislative package moving forward.

“We know from the CBO, EIA, and the EPA analyses that we can craft a policy that drives energy efficiency, brings clean new energy technologies online and costs about a postage-stamp per day,” said a senior committee staffer.

“But expanding Congress’ power internationally? Even if they do amend the constitution, they’ll have to come up with a whole new committee to oversee that. Can you imagine how much manuevering there’ll be for a seat, let alone the Chair? We won’t get anything else done.”

In yet another blow to the prestige and credibility of the US Chamber of Commerce, PNM Resources announced that it had given up its seat on the US Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, and issued a statement criticizing the Chamber’s stance on global warming.

“We strongly disagree with the chamber’s position on climate change legislation and particularly reject its recent theatrics” in calling for a review of the E.P.A.’s findings, Don Brown, a spokesman for PNM Resources, a New Mexico-based utility holding company, said in an e-mail message. Mr. Brown noted that PNM’s chief executive recently stepped down from the chamber’s board.”

The announcement is the latest development in a growing crisis over how the US Chamber represents its members interests on federal climate policy.

“We strongly disagree with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s position on climate change legislation and particularly reject its recent theatrics calling for a ‘Scopes Monkey Trial’ to put the science of climate change on trial. We believe the science is compelling enough to act sooner rather than later, and we support comprehensive federal legislation to meaningfully reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect customers against unreasonable cost increases.”

Unfortunately for the US Chamber, more and more businesses see the passage of clean energy and climate legislation as important to their bottom lines, and understand that well-crafted policy can move America forward in a way that strengthens the economy.

Why is the Chamber so hard-headed in the face of all these companies that want to move forward? It is interesting to note – as I have earlier this week – that US Chamber President and CEO Tom Donohue serves on the board of Union Pacific, which earns a significant portion of its revenues from hauling coal.

“Directors may not engage in any conduct or activities that are inconsistent with the Company’s best interests or that disrupt or impair the Company’s relationship with any person or entity with which the Company has or proposes to enter into a business or contractual relationship.”

Gee, what happens when the US Chamber of Commerce must choose a policy position and some of its members have interests that are “inconsistent” with Union Pacific’s?

]]>http://grist.org/article/pnm-resources-quits-us-chamber-board/feed/0Is Chamber of Commerce prez biased on climate because of his ties to Union Pacific railroad?http://grist.org/article/2009-09-15-chamber-of-commerce-presidents-ties-to-union-pacific-railroad/
http://grist.org/article/2009-09-15-chamber-of-commerce-presidents-ties-to-union-pacific-railroad/#respondWed, 16 Sep 2009 00:48:23 +0000http://www.grist.org/?p=32644]]>Why is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on such a different page from its major members when it comes to climate change legislation?

Now, a new question has arisen, prompted by this 2006 item about the 25th anniversary of a railroad line built by Union Pacific railroad to carry coal from southern Wyoming to the rest of the U.S.

What is the connection between Union Pacific Railroad, dirty coal and the U.S. Chamber? The dots connecting them draw what has the appearance of a conflict of interest between Tom Donohue’s role as President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and his role as an 11-year member of the Union Pacific Railroad’s Board of Directors.

Starting with Mr. Donohue: U.S. Chamber President Tom Donohue has been on the board of directors at Union Pacific since 1998. As a Union Pacific board member, Donohue has been well cared for.

He has been paid annual retainers by Union Pacific amounting to at least $1,134,333 since 1998.

As of 2008, Donohue has been granted over 43,000 shares of Union Pacific stock, and is entitled to the value of nearly 20,000 more shares when he leaves the board — a package whose combined value would be over $3.8 million if he were to sell it today.

So being on the Union Pacific board can be seen as worth about $5 million to Tom Donohue, so far. (You can piece all this compensation together from the company’s proxy statements.)

In addition, Union Pacific has been good to the U.S. Chamber:

Union Pacific has given $700,000 to the U.S. Chamber since 2004, including $500,000 to the Chamber’s “Leadership Fund” (a common name for PACs run by Chambers of Commerce), $100,000 to a voter education project in 2006 and $100,000 to an award ceremony in 2007. (These contributions to the Chamber are reported in the company’s 2009, 2008 and 2007 proxy statements.)

Ok, but it is common for people in Donohue’s position to be on various boards and such. So what? Well, I don’t know what the U.S. Chamber’s policy on conflict of interest says, but if it doesn’t cover this situation, it needs fixing.

Union Pacific has a vested interest in making sure it can continue to haul lots of coal.

Union Pacific is big in the business of carrying coal from mines to power plants, including from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming, the source of about 38 percent of all the coal produced in the U.S.

“We may be affected by climate change and market or regulatory responses to climate change…restrictions, caps, taxes, or other controls on emissions of greenhouse gasses, including diesel exhaust, could significantly increase our operating costs …[and] could also affect our customers … [which could] reduce the amount of traffic we handle and have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity.”

Which explains why Union Pacific has spent over $3 million on lobbying activities so far this year, including efforts to oppose the American Clean Energy and Security Act.

Not surprisingly, Union Pacific is a member of the beleaguered coal coalition known as ACCCE, which is hemorrhaging members opposed to its extremist agenda on climate change legislation.

Clearly, Union Pacific is worried about what climate legislation would do to its business, and decided to oppose the climate bill that the U.S. House passed in June.

It’s easy to understand Union Pacific’s interest in maintaining its lucrative coal traffic. Union Pacific and BNSF, another giant railroad (and ACCCE member!) have invested hundreds of millions over the last 25 years in a joint rail line capable of moving the coal.

It’s a big deal to these companies — they even issued a press release celebrating the 200,000th rail car of coal being shipped out of the Basin, an event memorialized in this group picture – which happens to show that the coal being shipped in the 200,000th train came from a coal mine owned by Peabody Energy (another ACCCE member! and one of the four U.S. Chamber board members that opposes climate policy.)

So to review…The President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who is resisting calls from his own board members to stop fighting against federal climate policy, is being richly compensated by Union Pacific, a company which — along with some of its key businesses partners — is vigorously fighting against federal climate policy.

So, it would seem fair for some of the companies on the Chamber board that want to move forward — Johnson & Johnson, Nike, PNM Resources, Dow, and recent ACCCE abandoners Duke and Alcoa — to wonder whether they are getting railroaded. And it would seem fair to ask Tom Donohue to explain how he’s going to address this apparent conflict of interest.

“Nearly six in 10 of those polled support the proposed changes to U.S. energy policy being developed by Congress and the administration. Fifty-five percent of Americans approve of the way Obama is handling the issue, compared with 30 percent who do not.”

According to E&E News, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) is the culprit responsible for hiring Bonner & Associates, the DC-based firm busted late last week for forging letters – ostensibly from NAACP and a Virgina network of Hispanic groups – opposing the US House climate bill (ACES.)

According to E&E’s story today,

“The group American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity acknowledged this afternoon that it had contracted Bonner & Associates earlier to perform “limited outreach,” but the advocacy group denounced the firm’s actions.”

That’s over $10.5 million that ACCCE suddenly realized it didn’t want to report as direct lobbying. At first, we figured that must have been tv advertising. But now we have to wonder – maybe that money has something to do with Bonner and Associates?

And that raises a second question. It doesn’t seem likely that Bonner’s firm would have generated fake opposition in just one Congressional district. So who else got fake letters?

But if ACCCE wants to come clean, it doesn’t need to wait for Congress or the Department of Justice. ACCCE should disclose what other members of Congress it asked Bonner to focus on, and how much it paid the firm for its dirty work.

The evidence that opponents of clean energy are using sleazy tactics, fueled by dirty money, is becoming more and more clear each day.

Today’s big news is reported by the Charlottesville Daily Progress, which reports that opponents of the ACES climate bill hired a DC lobby firm to manufacture grassroots opposition to the bill, using tactics that include writing fake letters ostensibly from real organizations, as the board member of one such organization said:

“They stole our name. They stole our logo. They created a position title and made up the name of someone to fill it. They forged a letter and sent it to our congressman without our authorization.”

The firm in question is Bonner and Associates, a long-time presence in DC known for its capacity to manufacture constitutencies for its clients. As William Greider reports in “Who Will Tell the People,” (published in 1993)

“Bonner & Associates packages democractic expression and sells it to corporate clients – drug manufacturers and the cosmetic industry, insurance companies and cigarette makers and the major banks.”

Their services are pretty fine tuned. As Bonner explains to Greider,

“We sit down with the lobbyists and ask: How much heat do you want on these guys? Do you want ten local groups or two hundred groups? Do you want one hundred phone calls from constituents or a thousand phone calls?”

It was a surprise when Sarah Palin announced that she would step down as Governor of Alaska. But it isn’t so surprising that America’s biggest quitter doesn’t think Americans are up to the challenge of creating a clean energy economy supported by new industries, businesses and jobs.

In her first act as “What the…??”-in-Chief, Palin announced her intention to campaign against clean energy, saying in a guest editorial in yesterday’s Washington Post: “what is foremost on my mind and where my focus will be [is] President Obama’s cap and trade energy plan.”

Wow. If that’s what’s foremost on the mind of a Governor that just quit her job…I guess I’m back to being surprised.

Palin reviews all the reasons she is against the clean energy agenda. You’ve heard this recipe before. Start with three cups of well-kneaded numbers from the Heritage Foundation; add five or six hefty talking points from any brand of ExxonMobil front-group; slowly stir in 2 cups of tears from dirty energy executives lamenting the oncoming age of clean energy. Bring to a slow boil, stirring constantly.

How did she come up with this recipe? Well, Sarah Palin is from Alaska, where “we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security.” And the rest of us don’t, you see.

And the links Palin suggests we consume are made out of the three fossil-food groups: coal, oil and gas. As she puts it: “Many states have abundant coal…Westerners literally sit on mountains of oil and gas, and every state can consider the possibility of nuclear energy.”

Ok, what I don’t understand is…how many Westerners can literally sit on a mountain of oil and gas? And how do they literally stay on top? But I digress.

Over the past 50 years, Alaska has warmed at more than twice the rate of the rest of the United States’ average. Its annual average temperature has increased 3.4°F, while winters have warmed by 6.3°F. The higher temperatures are already causing earlier spring snowmelt, reduced sea ice, widespread glacier retreat, and permafrost warming.

Warmer temperatures are already thawing Alaska’s permafrost, which threatens homes, and infrastructure. According to the report “Economists estimate that thawing permafrost will add billions of dollars in repair costs to public infrastructure.”

The combination of thawing permafrost and warmer temperatures are the likely cause of shrinking lakes across two-thirds of Alaska, lakes that are breeding grounds for waterfowl and shorebirds on which Alaska’s native people depend.

“The ground beneath some communities is literally crumbling into the sea. The rate of erosion along Alaska’s northeastern coastline has doubled over the past 50 years.”

“Fires are also increasing. By the end of this century, the area burned in Alaska is projected to triple under a moderate greenhouse gas emissions scenario and to quadruple under a higher emissions scenario.”

Now you’d think that as Governor, Sarah Palin must have noticed the melting permafrost, collapsing roads and buildings, villages falling into the sea, burning forests and so on. Apparently Governor Palin favors Baked Alaska.

As for the rest of us, if we want prosperity, opportunity, and security, clean energy is the right dish. We need to send Palin’s dirty energy entrée right back to the kitchen.

If you feel the ground shaking under your feet that is because the United States is about to be swallowed up into the bowels of Hell as the U.S. Senate takes up climate legislation.

Or so Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin would have you believe.

These and other right-wing “pundits” lost their tenuous grasp on reality in June when the U.S. House of Representatives voted to pass historic clean energy jobs legislation.

They and their followers are now crusading against House members who voted for the bill; and against Senators who will take up the bill next. That’s right, they have followers – a right-wing base organized by some very familiar right-wing characters. But I’ll come back to that in a minute.

Among the most unhinged of the commentators has been the venerable Rush Limbaugh. According to this host, the Waxman-Markey legislation should be called “Madoff-Waxman-Markey” because “this bill is a con game.” You can see the Dittohead in Chief bloviate here courtesy of our friends at Media Matters.

“… it pays for everyone to be extra-vigilant. Who stands to benefit from cap and trade? Why do we need to do it now? What does a ‘green banking center’ have to do with cooling the Earth? And, most importantly, is there still a chance to stop this insanity in the Senate or will our politicians there simply wait for the next celebrity death before once again convening in the middle of the night to sell America out to highest bidder?”

This kind of insidious attack of the undead may not have been what Michael Jackson had in mind when he recorded “Thriller,” but we certainly should thank Glenn Beck’s talent for sniffing out this shocking conspiracy.

Over in another alternate version of reality, Michelle Malkin has been huffing and puffing about the “8 cap-and-tax Republican” turncoats in the U.S. House. For the impressionable owners of assault rifles, blasting caps and large quantities of fertilizer, Malkin also conveniently provides a classic “WANTED: DEAD OR ALIVE”-style poster:

No word yet from Malkin on whether these Republicans will get their “fair trial” before or, more likely, after they put in front of the firing squad.

Now members of the House who voted for the bill – and Senators who will be voting on it next – are hearing from the Dittoheads and their friends, including the “Tea Party Patriots.”

Anyway, Beck, Fox News, the tea-baggers and others are at it again, urging their followers to let Congress know how they feel about the climate bill. Of course, it would be fair to wonder which of those followers are actually voters, when they are just calling through the lists that national blowhards and others put on-screen on or websites.

“When you write or call, please make sure you are armed with a city name and zip code in the home state of the Senator you are calling. They may not want to hear from you without this information. You can decline to give further personal information.”

What other tactics might some callers try out? During a quick scan of Twitter’s #capandtax thread I came across this advice one user suggests for calls to senators: “Why call 1X when u can call 2X? or 3 or 4 times;)RT.” (RT meaning ‘retweet,’ or pass this suggestion on.)

But these kinds of shady tactics seem to be part and parcel with this lot. In fact, the “tea party” movement is not as spontaneous as its organizers would like you to think. It isn’t quite Astroturf – since the partiers are real humans, after all. But it isn’t really grassroots, either, since it didn’t crop up naturally. I think of it as a grass-sod network: right wing funders and organizations planted it and now water and fertilize it.

“Here is the organizational landscape of the April 15 tea party movement, in a nutshell: three national-level conservative groups, all with slightly different agendas, are guiding it. All are quick to tell you that the movement is a bottom-up affair and that its grassroots cred is real. They are: FreedomWorks, the conservative action group led by Dick Armey; dontGO, a tech savvy free-market action group that sprang out of last August’s oil-drilling debate in the House of Representatives; and Americans for Prosperity, an issue advocacy/activist group based on free market principles. Conservative bloggers, talk show hosts, and other media figures have attached themselves to the movement in peripheral capacities.”

And guess what? FreedomWorks is still behind the movement – and clearly behind the turnout of tea party people at recent 4th of July parades.

Its hard not to notice something else – the Club for Growth is behind this as well.

So, the next time you are tempted to scoff at right-wing critics of responsible action on clean energy and green jobs, remember this: They may sound ridiculous to you, but there’s an audience out there for this malarkey. And that audience is being advised to deliberately lie about their identities in order to mislead members of Congress into thinking they are hearing from constituents. And when you look at the groups behind the effort, well … it comes back to some of the same old interests that still don’t want the US to move forward to a future with clean energy and green jobs.

]]>panic_button.jpgACES will help create more jobs and opportunities for low-income families — see maphttp://grist.org/article/aces-will-help-create-more-jobs-and-opportunities-for-low-income-families/
http://grist.org/article/aces-will-help-create-more-jobs-and-opportunities-for-low-income-families/#respondFri, 26 Jun 2009 23:12:39 +0000http://www.grist.org/article/aces-will-help-create-more-jobs-and-opportunities-for-low-income-families/]]>

The American Clean Energy and Security Act will help spur $150 billion in clean energy investments, which will create 1.7 million good-paying jobs throughout the United States.

Clean energy jobs are labor intensive, and clean energy investments create more jobs across all skill and education levels than comparable investments in fossil-fuel energy sources.

Clean energy investments create 3.2 times as many jobs as fossil-fuel investments overall. Among workers with few educational credentials and little work experience, clean energy investments create 5.5 times as many jobs as fossil-fuel investments. Furthermore, 75% of those clean energy jobs provide opportunities for advancement and higher salaries, enabling workers to lift their families out of poverty.

How would this job creation, and new opportunities for low-income families work out state-by-state? Based on recent reports by the Political Economy Research Institute, we mapped out job creation figures for total jobs created as well as the number of those jobs that are accessible to workers with low educational credentials or few jobs skills. On the map below, total job creation figures are in black, the low credential job figures are in white.

Total US job creation: 1,713,500 jobs. Of those, 871,000 would be accessible to those with low educational credentials and/or few job skills.

NRDC commissioned PERI to develop state-level figures for low-credential jobs for 21 states. Figures for remaining states were estimated by NRDC based upon the PERI data. For full methodology and explanation, see my original post.

The American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act allocates funding to produce the next generation of clean, fuel-efficient vehicles in the United States, and when combined with clean vehicle performance standards adopted by the Obama administration, the American on-road fleet will become about 25% more fuel efficient over the next decade.

As a result, by 2020, Americans will drive more efficient vehicles and have lower household transportation costs. Even in the face of rising gasoline prices, cleaner vehicles will save money by sipping instead of guzzling gasoline.

]]>http://grist.org/article/americans-save-on-fuel-bills-under-aces/feed/0HR%202454%20Average%20Fuel%20Savings%20map.jpgClimate bill puts Americans in the green (SEE MAP)http://grist.org/article/climate-bill-puts-americans-in-the-green/
http://grist.org/article/climate-bill-puts-americans-in-the-green/#respondThu, 25 Jun 2009 02:01:45 +0000http://www.grist.org/article/climate-bill-puts-americans-in-the-green/]]>There’s a lot of talk about the costs of the proposed climate bill for American consumers. As we’ve documented repeatedly, opponents of climate policy have cranked out lots of “studies” to prove the bill will crater the economy.

The latest garbage to come out of the opposition team was the map that suddenly popped up last week, purporting to show that the American Clean Energy and Security Act would rob states of large sums of cash. Kate Sheppard traced it back to the National Mining Association in a terrific piece.

While the NMA map was a good visual, it wasn’t a good actual. As in, actual representation of the bill it purports to represent. As Kate notes, the analysis on which it was based didn’t actually model the bill. Which as I’ve noted before is a tried and true way to show catastrophic effects for climate legislation.

The Climate Bill Cuts Electricity Bills

Well, NRDC did model the actual bill. And its actual provisions. And we find that Americans in nearly every state will save on their monthly electricity bill under the American Clean Energy and Security Act. With its energy-efficiency and consumer protection provisions, H.R. 2454 creates modest savings for most consumers. Even in the few states where savings compared to business-as-usual are not projected, bills still will be lower under H.R. 2454 than they were in 2007.

Now, they are bringing those same mad skills of deception to mapmaking. Yes, you read that right: We are now looking at lying via cartography.

This colorful map surfaced on Capitol Hill this week, purporting to show that most states would be hurt by the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES). Flogged during a press conference by Representatives Frank Lucas (R-OK), Sam Graves (R-MO), and Doc Hastings (R-WA), the map is an obvious attempt to scare legislators away from the ACES bill.

The blood-red colors showing the “carnage” the bill would supposedly cause really jump off the page, but as usual the coal industry is playing fast and loose here.

For example, one cannot tell the maker of the map just by looking at it. You have to probe a little deeper, as Grist did, to find out more where this map came from.

Click on the “Custom” tab of the “Properties” box on the file and you’ll find Arch Coal’s fingerprints in the form of an Arch Coal legislative staffer’s name and email address together with the subject “Map Regarding Pending Climate Bill.” (Amusingly, if you look under the “General” tab its evident that Arch cannibalized a map from an old Peabody investor presentation. Arch, you couldn’t afford your own map?)

You don’t have to be a brain surgeon to figure out the play here: Arch wants Congress to think that the ACES bill will cost a lot because they want to tilt the playing field to favor coal burning as much as possible. But their map is as phony as the claim that electricity consumers would be hurt.

That’s because Arch Coal is using phony math to exaggerate the cost of the bill by comparing each state’s electric generation emissions to the emissions allowances each state’s electricity consumers would get for free while ignoring other allowances states will get, also for free. The coal lobby wants us to believe that if a state has more emissions than allowances, the bill will cost the residents big-time.

But this is inaccurate and misleading for several reasons. For starters, electrons don’t stop at the state line. As my colleague Laurie Johnson explains, states sell power to their neighbors, and their neighbors’ neighbors. If you ignore electricity imports and exports, you get a phony picture of how electricity costs are actually spread around the country.

And in many states a lot of electricity is sold to industrial firms whose products are shipped all around the country and the world. That means the modest increases in total electricity bills in some states will be spread in tiny amounts over tens of millions of consumers of those goods outside the states where they are manufactured. (Laurie has some great charts showing this.)

Why do we say the bill increases are modest? Because the ACES bill also provides free allowances to many industries to protect them and their customers from increased electricity costs, which otherwise might result in unfair competition from overseas producers. But the coal lobby map ignores that too.

One more reason to be skeptical about the Arch map: It cites the Energy Information Administration and the Congressional Budget Office as its sources. A reader might assume that means the mapmaker got their #s for emission allowance allocations from those sources. But neither the EIA or CBO have calculated how much each state would get. So who knows who came up with the allocation breakdown the “analysis” ostensibly relies upon?

For a…well, fact-based picture of how ACES will affect electric bills, take a look at this map using data crunched by utility company consultant MJ Bradley. This map is a truer representation because it takes imports and exports into account, and puts the figure in terms of actual impacts on monthly electric bills. In most states, the electric bill impact is a few dimes a day.

But for those folks whose purchasing power is diminished by the impact of the legislation on electric bills, the bill provides direct cash refunds. This provision is so effective that the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities announced in a May 2009 news release about the bill “The consumer refund, in combination with the allocations to utility companies under the Waxman-Markey bill, would succeed in fully offsetting the average loss of purchasing power that low-income households would face, adjusted for household size.”

And that doesn’t even count the fact that the federal energy efficiency provisions included in the bill could save approximately $750 per household by 2020 and $3,900 per household by 2030, according to a preliminary analysis by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). Savings from reduced energy use will be reinvested locally, generating economic activity and jobs. Many agree that these savings are conservative estimates of the savings that consumers will see.

The lesson here? We already knew we can’t trust coal industry TV ads. And now we know that we can’t trust their maps.

It’s time to face facts. You are just wrong when you forecast massive job losses, economic dislocation and harm to low-income Americans if the U.S. takes action on energy/green jobs issues. Contrary to what you’ve been suggesting, it turns out that “down is not up” and “night is not day”: More green jobs resulting from tackling climate change is a good thing for America — including lower-income households.

The report finds that half of the net new jobs created through clean energy investments would be accessible to workers with high school degrees or less, and that about 75% of those jobs will offer good opportunities promotions and rising wages over time. In addition, investments in energy efficiency and transportation reduce monthly living expenses, which consume a high proportion of the budgets for low-income budgets.

The report concludes:

“The building of a clean-energy economy in the United States can also serve another purpose: to create new ‘pathways out of poverty’ for the 78 million people in this country (roughly 25 percent of the population) who are presently poor or near-poor, and raise living standards more generally for low-income people in the United States.”

The 1 percentage point fall in unemployment should raise earnings for low-income workers by about 2 percent.

More & better jobs for those who need them most

More than half of the net new jobs — roughly 870,000 — would be accessible to workers with high school degrees or less.

About 75% of those jobs — roughly 614,000 – will offer good opportunities promotions and rising wages over time. The job creation within this category is seven times larger than the number of jobs that would be created in this category by spending the same amount of money within the fossil fuel industry.

Making homes more energy efficient reduces living costs by an average of 3-4 percent for low-income households.

Improved Public Transportation

Improving public transportation in urban centers to about 25-50 percent of total transportation could lower costs and raise living standards for low-income households by an average of 1-4 percent.

The largest benefits will accrue to households that can replace a car with public transit.

These households would see their annual transportation expenditures fall by roughly $2,000.

This would represent a reduction in total expenditures for these families by about 10 percent.

So, let’s get the story straight: Tackling climate change means more jobs, more income and lower living expenses for low-income Americans. The conclusion is simple: If you really care about poor and near-poor Americans, get on the right team and start working for Congressional action on climate change and green jobs. I’m not holding my breath here, but I would like to think that you can’t ignore the facts forever!

]]>http://grist.org/article/news-flash-more-jobs-and-lower-energy-costs-good-for-low-income-americans/feed/0hard-hat.jpgClimate math: How the “Chicken Littles” cook the numbershttp://grist.org/article/climate-math-how-the-chicken-littles-cook-the-numbers/
http://grist.org/article/climate-math-how-the-chicken-littles-cook-the-numbers/#respondWed, 20 May 2009 04:21:54 +0000http://www.grist.org/article/climate-math-how-the-chicken-littles-cook-the-numbers/]]>The transition to clean energy, reducing our dependence on dangerous foreign oil and protecting our environment will cost less than some would have you think.

In April, the EPA estimated that the American Clean Energy and Security Act would cost households less than the cost of a postage stamp each day, roughly $100-$140 per year. Since then, the EPA estimates the changes to the bill will reduce the cost of allowances by 10%, which will in turn lower the actual cost to households.

The EPA is not alone in forecasting only nominal impacts from the bill. Numerous academic and government studies have found that climate legislation has a nearly indistinguishable impact on GDP.

But have such predictions been borne out in the past? With decades of environmental regulation and cost data behind us, a number of experts have asked and answered this question. As Frank Ackerman of Tufts University summarizes in his paper “The Unbearable Lightness of Regulatory Costs,”

“The evidence is clear: the costs of environmental protection are much more often overestimated, rather than underestimated, in advance…One study found that compliance costs for environmental regulations were overestimated in advance in 11 out of 12 cases (Hodges 1997). Another study found that advance cost estimates for environmental compliance turned out to be more than 25 percent too high in 14 out of 28 cases, while they were more than 25 percent too low in only 3 of the 28 cases (Harrington et al. 2000). A study for Environment Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Energy, Science and Technology, focusing specifically on the costs of controlling chlorinated substances, confirmed that overestimation of regulatory costs is more common than underestimation (Cheminfo Services 2000).” [emphasis added]

It isn’t that surprising that despite thirty years of claims about economic doom and gloom being proven false, industry and opponents of climate legislation continue to trot such claims out. What is surprising is anyone listens to them anymore.

]]>http://grist.org/article/climate-math-how-the-chicken-littles-cook-the-numbers/feed/0money-pile.jpgBroad and diverse support for Waxman-Markey’s American Clean Energy and Security Acthttp://grist.org/article/broad-and-diverse-support-for-waxman-markeys-american-clean-energy-and-secu/
http://grist.org/article/broad-and-diverse-support-for-waxman-markeys-american-clean-energy-and-secu/#commentsWed, 20 May 2009 04:05:17 +0000http://www.grist.org/article/broad-and-diverse-support-for-waxman-markeys-american-clean-energy-and-secu/]]>Support for the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 is coming in from a broad and diverse range of constituencies, including businesses, unions, elected officials, environmental groups, organizations representing low-income Americans and people of faith and coalitions combining some of those constituencies.

Dow: “We support your aim to move the bill through the Committee, and we look forward to working with you and others in Congress as this legislation is further considered.”

Exelon: “We may be on the brink of something astounding in Washington. This is due to the hard work and political courage of President Obama, Chairmen Waxman and Markey, Congressman Boucher, Senator Bingaman and many others.”

GE: “On behalf of GE, I would like to offer my support for the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The bill represents a strong step toward an energy policy for the United States that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, set us on a path to a more secure energy and economic future, and make the United States the world’s technology leader in energy.”

United Auto Workers (UAW): “The UAW generally supports H.R. 2454 and urges Members of the Committee to vote to favorably report this measure.”

FPL Group: “We are encouraged by all of the recent progress that has been made on the bill, and as such, we support moving it through the committee process and onto the House floor. It is vital that legislation pass this year.”

Laborers International Union of North America (LIUNA): “We feel the time to act is now and the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES) provides a road map of federal policies to move our country toward building a clean energy economy – an economy that both combats global warming and creates millions of good paying jobs.”

PG&E: “We believe that the ACESA includes many of the key provisions and concepts listed above, to varying degrees, and we encourage you to support moving the legislation out of Committee.”

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: “Our estimate is that setting aside 15 percent of the allowance value for refunds and tax credits for consumers, together with other provisions in the bill setting aside free allowances that the companies receiving them must use for consumer relief, would ensure that the average household in the bottom 20 percent of the population would not experience any reduction in the purchasing power of its budget. We strongly commend you for including this protection for low-income households in your legislation, which we hope the Energy and Commerce Committee will approve.”

United States Climate Action Partnership: “USCAP believes the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACESA) broadly embraces the approach recommended in the USCAP Blueprint for Legislative Action that we issued in January 2009. While not every USCAP recommendation is contained in ACESA, USCAP urges the full Committee to advance the bill so Congress can continue to build on the progress made by the Committee thus far.”

Clean Energy Group (The Clean Energy Group is composed of Austin Energy, Avista Corporation, Calpine Corporation, Constellation Energy Group, Entergy Corporation, Exelon Corporation, FPL Group, Inc., National Grid, PG&E Corporation, Public Service Enterprise Group Seattle City Light):“We look forward to reviewing the imminent legislative language and hope that theCommittee moves swiftly and constructively to advance a bill as a first step toward enacting a national climate change program this year.”

Blue-Green Alliance (United Steelworkers, Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Communications Workers of America, Service Employees Union International, Laborers International Union of North America): “As the nation continues to face high unemployment and the threat of climate change, Chairmen Waxman and Markey have shown true leadership on this critical issue. . . Passing comprehensive climate legislation is a critical step forward. The Blue Green Alliance looks forward to working with Congress to make certain that the provisions in this legislation ensure the creation of millions of good, family-sustaining green jobs in the United States and the protection of public health and the environment for future generations.”

Climate Communities (representing elected officials from Sacramento County, CA; King County, WA; Tacoma, WA; Snohomish County, WA; Montgomery County, MD; Monmouth County, NJ; Sonoma County, CA; Story County, IA; Dubuque, IA; Dane County, WI; New Kent County, VA; Burlington, VT; King County, WA; Stamford, CT; Loudoun County, VA; Washtenaw County, MI; Snohomish County, WA; Savannah, GA; Nassau County, NY; James City County, VA; Annapolis, MD; Santa Monica, CA; Santa Ana, CA; Miami-Dade County, FL):

“On behalf of the hundreds of local governments across America working with the Climate Communities coalition to support national action on climate change, we write to convey our support for the passage of H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy & Security Act (ACES) as a strong first step on the path to climate legislation. Local governments are ready to play our part in meeting the climate challenge and creating a clean energy economy, and this legislation will create real incentives for progress and innovation in both the public and private sectors.”

Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America: “The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, the nation’s largest Orthodox Jewish umbrella organization, is pleased that based on our discussions with the Chairman Waxman, Subcommittee Chairman Markey and other key offices, the legislation includes non-profits and houses of worship in this retrofit program and we applaud Reps. Waxman and Markey for this important clarification.”

Audubon: “The National Audubon Society strongly urges you to support the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454).”

NRDC: “I urge you to vote in favor of reporting the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) during this week’s markup in the Energy and Commerce Committee. This legislation will create clean energy jobs, reduce our dangerous dependence on oil, and finally limit the carbon pollution that causes global warming.”

“On behalf of the millions of people we represent, we urge you to strengthen and support the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), which sets us on the path toward creating clean energy jobs, reducing our dangerous dependence on oil, and cutting the carbon pollution that causes global warming. This committee vote is the most important in decades, and we hope you will do all that you can to strengthen and pass this legislation.”

National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA): “Climate change will severely impact the operations of these utilities, which is why we strongly support comprehensive legislation to mitigate and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the overall approach taken in the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES).”

(NOTE: These are excerpts. If you want to know all the details of where any organization stands on the bill, read their entire letter.)